If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   Romney in CNN debate: Get rid of FEMA, let states handle disasters. Romney campaign now that there's a major emergency: We need to make sure states "have the resources and assistance they need"   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 334
    More: Amusing, Mitt Romney, FEMA, GOP, hurricane warning, United States, Ocean City, Hilton Head Island, Hurricane Irene  
•       •       •

7717 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Oct 2012 at 3:06 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



334 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-29 02:43:55 AM

SlappyKincaid: log_jammin: SlappyKincaid: Thanks for the info. The if the National Guard already does this at a statewide level why is FEMA needed? Is it purely coordination or do they put boots on the ground?

I follow politics pretty closely however I am lacking in understanding about FEMA. I know what the acronym means but I can't find a true reason why they are not superfluous.


resources. Bottled water, food, communications, doctors, coordinating state relief efforts with federal efforts, etc.. It's just a way to provide more than what one state can do on it's own.

Again thanks. It just seems to be that a state should be able to supply much of this, short of full devastation, without having to rely on others, especially in a populous state. I live in Chicago, IL and if we had massive damage due to Tornadoes, which we do get from time to time, I don't see why we can't send in our own doctors etc. Each state could have an army of volunteers. I would sign up and volunteer my talents in case of disaster.

I'm just trying to find a creative way to solve the problem that would also help mitigate cost to the tax payers.

For a small state like Rhode Island I think FEMA makes sense. A 50' tsumani could level pretty much all of the state. But for us larger, heavily populated states I think it should be left to us.

That's my two cents anyway. Feel free to disagree!


It's ALWAYS left to the state. FEMA can't be brought in unless a state declares a state of emergency and asks for federal aid. I think that's why Christie waited as long as he did to declare it (3pm today, as opposed to the rest of the East Coast states who declared it on Saturday). He's gunning for a 2016 presidential election and doesn't want to be seen relying on the Feds. However, when you've got a huge Frankenstorm bearing down on you, ready to make landfall right in the middle of your state, you look at your resources and decide if you can handle it or not. NJ can't handle this on its own. The storm's too big, there are too many senior citizens (NJ has more retirees than FL, most of whom are in Ocean County, where Sandy is most likely to make landfall) who need to be evacuated, 130 miles of beaches that are going to be seriously eroded, LOTS of multi-million dollar beachfront property...and that's just off the top of my head.
 
2012-10-29 02:45:35 AM

log_jammin:

The state can and does send it's own doctors and supplies and what ever. The simple fact is that most, if not all, the states simple do not have the resources to handle a major disaster all on their own.

There is no reason at all to do away with FEMA and make the states handle it on their own.


That could be true. I think my project for tonight will be to look up the capabilities of FEMA versus what the average state can do.

Do you know if FEMA is called out on every disaster (torando in Kansas wipes out town, for example) or is it just the Katrina type disasters?
 
2012-10-29 02:47:38 AM

SlappyKincaid: log_jammin: SlappyKincaid: Thanks for the info. The if the National Guard already does this at a statewide level why is FEMA needed? Is it purely coordination or do they put boots on the ground?

I follow politics pretty closely however I am lacking in understanding about FEMA. I know what the acronym means but I can't find a true reason why they are not superfluous.


resources. Bottled water, food, communications, doctors, coordinating state relief efforts with federal efforts, etc.. It's just a way to provide more than what one state can do on it's own.

Again thanks. It just seems to be that a state should be able to supply much of this, short of full devastation, without having to rely on others, especially in a populous state. I live in Chicago, IL and if we had massive damage due to Tornadoes, which we do get from time to time, I don't see why we can't send in our own doctors etc. Each state could have an army of volunteers. I would sign up and volunteer my talents in case of disaster.

I'm just trying to find a creative way to solve the problem that would also help mitigate cost to the tax payers.

For a small state like Rhode Island I think FEMA makes sense. A 50' tsumani could level pretty much all of the state. But for us larger, heavily populated states I think it should be left to us.

That's my two cents anyway. Feel free to disagree!


It's an illogical use of resources. No matter what state you're in, a certain amount of your state's funds are allocated to emergency response. And may be enough for most problems. However, to have a force capable of dealing with the extremes, those problems that only come along once every few years or decades, would require allocating money for personnel, facilities and supplies that would spend the rest of the time doing nothing. Having that "extra firepower" centralized so that it can be allocated in one state this year, another the next, spreads that cost around and allows the individual states to use their resources for other, more pressing issues.
 
2012-10-29 02:49:22 AM

brigid_fitch:

It's ALWAYS left to the state. FEMA can't be brought in unless a state declares a state of emergency and asks for federal aid. I think that's why Christie waited as long as he did to declare it (3pm today, as opposed to the rest of the East Coast states who declared it on Saturday). He's gunning for a 2016 presidential election and doesn't want to be seen relying on the Feds. However, when you've got a huge Frankenstorm bearing down on you, ready to make landfall right in the middle of your state, you look at your resources and decide if you can handle it or not. NJ can't handle this on its own. The ...


Oh I see. FEMA is not an automatic response. The state has the power to envoke them or too refuse them.

That's good to know. Thanks!

In a case like Sandy, I think everyone in those states can use all the help they can get, assuming it's going to be as crazy as predicted.

I'm not really pro-central government, in case that wasn't clear, but there are times when the central government is needed and this may be one of them.
 
2012-10-29 02:53:26 AM

SlappyKincaid: Do you know if FEMA is called out on every disaster (torando in Kansas wipes out town, for example) or is it just the Katrina type disasters?


FEMA is called out if the start requests them.
 
2012-10-29 02:54:02 AM

timujin:
It's an illogical use of resources. No matter what state you're in, a certain amount of your state's funds are allocated to emergency response. And may be enough for most problems. However, to have a force capable of dealing with the extremes, those problems that only come along once every few years or decades, would require allocating money for personnel, facilities and supplies that would spend the rest of the time doing nothing. Having that "extra firepower" centralized so that it can be allocated in one state this year, another the next, spreads that cost around and allows the individual states to ...


That does make sense. I know that Katrina was about $108 billion dollars in damages and no state level earmarking could withhold that much in funds for disaster relief purely. Well maybe in a large population state but definitely not a Louisiana.

An organization like FEMA would be beneficial for that level of damage.

Does anyone know if FEMA is subordinate to the state when called in or can supercede the State's authority given that they were requested by the state?

If FEMA is called in do they take over all coordination and control for the disaster?
 
2012-10-29 02:54:33 AM

SlappyKincaid: log_jammin: SlappyKincaid: Thanks for the info. The if the National Guard already does this at a statewide level why is FEMA needed? Is it purely coordination or do they put boots on the ground?

I follow politics pretty closely however I am lacking in understanding about FEMA. I know what the acronym means but I can't find a true reason why they are not superfluous.


resources. Bottled water, food, communications, doctors, coordinating state relief efforts with federal efforts, etc.. It's just a way to provide more than what one state can do on it's own.

Again thanks. It just seems to be that a state should be able to supply much of this, short of full devastation, without having to rely on others, especially in a populous state. I live in Chicago, IL and if we had massive damage due to Tornadoes, which we do get from time to time, I don't see why we can't send in our own doctors etc. Each state could have an army of volunteers. I would sign up and volunteer my talents in case of disaster.

I'm just trying to find a creative way to solve the problem that would also help mitigate cost to the tax payers.

For a small state like Rhode Island I think FEMA makes sense. A 50' tsumani could level pretty much all of the state. But for us larger, heavily populated states I think it should be left to us.

That's my two cents anyway. Feel free to disagree!


Maybe because if your state is wiped out in a disaster, all of your state's resources will be wiped out, too.
 
2012-10-29 02:55:05 AM
"state", not "start".
 
2012-10-29 03:01:34 AM

propasaurus:
Maybe because if your state is wiped out in a disaster, all of your state's resources will be wiped out, too.


I actually mentioned that in an earlier post. A state like Rhode Island could indeed be wiped out by something like a 50' tsunami and I can see the benefit of FEMA there.



log_jammin: "state", not "start".


I understood what you meant. :)
 
2012-10-29 03:01:43 AM

SlappyKincaid: Does anyone know if FEMA is subordinate to the state when called in or can supercede the State's authority given that they were requested by the state?


subordinate in what way? The governor of the state is still the head of that state and still controls that states resources.
 
2012-10-29 03:03:52 AM

log_jammin: SlappyKincaid: Does anyone know if FEMA is subordinate to the state when called in or can supercede the State's authority given that they were requested by the state?

subordinate in what way? The governor of the state is still the head of that state and still controls that states resources.



Yes but FEMA is not a state agency. It's federal. In many cases the Federal Government can, and will, override the State government. I was wondering if this was one of those cases.
 
2012-10-29 03:05:55 AM
I'm looking up FEMA now. This has really piqued my curiosity now. Of all the government agencies I think are superfluous I'm thinking this is probably a needed thing.
 
2012-10-29 03:09:00 AM

SlappyKincaid: Does anyone know if FEMA is subordinate to the state when called in or can supercede the State's authority given that they were requested by the state?

If FEMA is called in do they take over all coordination and control for the disaster?


Sometimes. IIRC, it depends on the level of emergency. If it's a big one, they coordinate everything. If it's a small, localized one, they may just send in specialists & consultants. FEMA's broken down into a number of departments, like medical teams, search & rescue, and communications people. They'll mobilize what units are needed.

Mind you, I'm going by memory from about 8 years ago when my brother was National Guard. However, from what I'm seeing on friends' FB posts who are still in the Guard, it doesn't seem to have changed much.
 
2012-10-29 03:09:12 AM

SlappyKincaid: brigid_fitch:

It's ALWAYS left to the state. FEMA can't be brought in unless a state declares a state of emergency and asks for federal aid. I think that's why Christie waited as long as he did to declare it (3pm today, as opposed to the rest of the East Coast states who declared it on Saturday). He's gunning for a 2016 presidential election and doesn't want to be seen relying on the Feds. However, when you've got a huge Frankenstorm bearing down on you, ready to make landfall right in the middle of your state, you look at your resources and decide if you can handle it or not. NJ can't handle this on its own. The ...

Oh I see. FEMA is not an automatic response. The state has the power to envoke them or too refuse them.

That's good to know. Thanks!

In a case like Sandy, I think everyone in those states can use all the help they can get, assuming it's going to be as crazy as predicted.

I'm not really pro-central government, in case that wasn't clear, but there are times when the central government is needed and this may be one of them.


Y'know what? What's wrong with a central government? We're one country. One big-ass country. Why do we need 50 sets of rules and regulations? You're an American, not a Georgian or Californian or Texan. Same rules apply to everyone.
 
2012-10-29 03:09:28 AM

SlappyKincaid: I follow politics pretty closely however I am lacking in understanding about FEMA. I know what the acronym means but I can't find a true reason why they are not superfluous.


Yes, but last I checked your profile admitted you were living in the State of Denial; there may be a connection.

a.imageshack.us
 

Since "superfluous" implicitly requires relation to a purpose, which requires an ought-ordering of is-choices, the use of the word "true" induces me to suggest Hume's "A Treatise of Human Nature" to your attention.
 
2012-10-29 03:12:07 AM

SlappyKincaid: I'm looking up FEMA now.


You might also look up the New Madrid earthquake, and it's relation to FEMA and predecessors.
 
2012-10-29 03:13:33 AM

brigid_fitch: Sometimes. IIRC, it depends on the level of emergency. If it's a big one, they coordinate everything. If it's a small, localized one, they may just send in specialists & consultants. FEMA's broken down into a number of departments, like medical teams, search & rescue, and communications people. They'll mobilize what units are needed.


That sounds right to me too.
 
2012-10-29 03:15:41 AM
Well, had they given the states the power in the past, and this came up, then yeah, he's a hypocrite. But no one gave the states that power, so of course he wants Government/FEMA aid.

Christ some of you have the mind of children and cannot see outside the literal sense.
 
2012-10-29 03:17:01 AM

abb3w: SlappyKincaid: I follow politics pretty closely however I am lacking in understanding about FEMA. I know what the acronym means but I can't find a true reason why they are not superfluous.

Yes, but last I checked your profile admitted you were living in the State of Denial; there may be a connection.

[a.imageshack.us image 338x156] 

Since "superfluous" implicitly requires relation to a purpose, which requires an ought-ordering of is-choices, the use of the word "true" induces me to suggest Hume's "A Treatise of Human Nature" to your attention.

 

i445.photobucket.com
 
2012-10-29 03:17:37 AM

brigid_fitch: I think that's why Christie waited as long as he did to declare it (3pm today, as opposed to the rest of the East Coast states who declared it on Saturday). He's gunning for a 2016 presidential election and doesn't want to be seen relying on the Feds.


If FEMA comes late to the party, he can blame Obama. Natch.
 
2012-10-29 03:19:05 AM

SlappyKincaid: I'm not really pro-central government, in case that wasn't clear, but there are times when the central government is needed and this may be one of them.


I understand and actually appreciate that you're asking intelligent questions about it instead of going all WHARBARBL about Big Government. Look at FEMA like insurance. All the states pay into it but hope they never have to use it. However, it's there if they need it. And, just like you have the option of going to the doctor if you decide that maybe you're a little sicker than you thought & you need something more than bedrest and Nyquil, governors have the option of calling in FEMA.
 
2012-10-29 03:21:02 AM

propasaurus:
Y'know what? What's wrong with a central government? We're one country. One big-ass country. Why do we need 50 sets of rules and regulations? You're an American, not a Georgian or Californian or Texan. Same rules apply to everyone.


I see nothing wrong with a central government! I just don't think every little thing needs to be filtered through there. I am indeed an American and enjoy the rights and privileges bestowed on me as a result. That said being critical of our government isn't a bad thing.

I'm always looking for a better way to do things. In this case I'm now fairly convinced FEMA is a good thing to have, though after now reading up on it, I'm not sure if it should be under the Department of Homeland Security. I can see why they did that but I think it would be better if it was free of military obligation.



abb3w: SlappyKincaid: I follow politics pretty closely however I am lacking in understanding about FEMA. I know what the acronym means but I can't find a true reason why they are not superfluous.

Yes, but last I checked your profile admitted you were living in the State of Denial; there may be a connection.

[a.imageshack.us image 338x156] 

Since "superfluous" implicitly requires relation to a purpose, which requires an ought-ordering of is-choices, the use of the word "true" induces me to suggest Hume's "A Treatise of Human Nature" to your attention.



LOL. I should probably update that. I don't think my profile has been updated since I joined Fark. What I was 7 years ago is not what I am now. We all learn and grow and I don't believe I'm the angst ridden 20 something I was then.

As for Hume I have not read his works but I have read Kant among others. I will check him out. Thanks!


So, independent of Fark I have now read about FEMA. As I stated above I'm not a fan of it being under DHS but I do think it is one of those agencies that is needed in a central government.

Thanks to all who answered my questions and humored me in my questions. If we're not learning, or at least trying to understand, what is the point!
 
2012-10-29 03:23:07 AM
well that was refreshing.
 
2012-10-29 03:23:07 AM

SlappyKincaid: propasaurus:
Y'know what? What's wrong with a central government? We're one country. One big-ass country. Why do we need 50 sets of rules and regulations? You're an American, not a Georgian or Californian or Texan. Same rules apply to everyone.

I see nothing wrong with a central government! I just don't think every little thing needs to be filtered through there. I am indeed an American and enjoy the rights and privileges bestowed on me as a result. That said being critical of our government isn't a bad thing.

I'm always looking for a better way to do things. In this case I'm now fairly convinced FEMA is a good thing to have, though after now reading up on it, I'm not sure if it should be under the Department of Homeland Security. I can see why they did that but I think it would be better if it was free of military obligation.


Welcome to the post-9/11 world.
 
2012-10-29 03:23:09 AM
4.bp.blogspot.com



That is all.
 
2012-10-29 03:24:37 AM

sendtodave: brigid_fitch: I think that's why Christie waited as long as he did to declare it (3pm today, as opposed to the rest of the East Coast states who declared it on Saturday). He's gunning for a 2016 presidential election and doesn't want to be seen relying on the Feds.

If FEMA comes late to the party, he can blame Obama. Natch.


As I said in another thread, if anyone--especially someone in NJ--complains that FEMA didn't act quickly enough, I'm going to beat them over the head w/a video of Christie's 2:45pm press conference. We were the last state on the East Coast to declare a state of emergency. That means FEMA had put aside resources for 7-8 states before we got added to the list.
 
2012-10-29 03:25:26 AM
Wow, God really hates Mitt Romney.
 
2012-10-29 03:25:49 AM

hbk72777: Well, had they given the states the power in the past, and this came up, then yeah, he's a hypocrite. But no one gave the states that power, so of course he wants Government/FEMA aid.

Christ some of you have the mind of children and cannot see outside the literal sense.


Power?
 
2012-10-29 03:25:54 AM

SlappyKincaid: Genevieve Marie: SlappyKincaid: For a small state like Rhode Island I think FEMA makes sense. A 50' tsumani could level pretty much all of the state. But for us larger, heavily populated states I think it should be left to us.

That's my two cents anyway. Feel free to disagree!

Not all states have the money and resources to properly handle emergencies. Can you imagine Louisiana or Mississippi trying to deal with a major disaster with no federal disaster relief? It was bad enough when we had help.

That is true. Many states these days are over budget and in their current state many would need to rely on the federal government for help in a disaster.

I'm not saying it wouldn't take effort but why can't each state set aside a certain amount of funds that could be allocated to disaster relief, especially in states prone to natural disaster? Florida, Kansas and California come to mind, though Katrina also puts Louisiana on the list. They could earmark funds that cannot be touched except in the case of a disaster.

I look at something like Katrina or 9/11 and it was amazing to see just how many citizens pulled together to give freely of their time and energy to help others out and I wonder why states can't advertise for that.

Maybe it's the neighborhoods I've lived in but people are more than willing to help out others when things happen. I remember my parents taking in our neighbors for like 3 months when a fire pretty much demolished their home. That left an indelible mark on my perception of charity and I wish more would adopt that attitude. Self reliance and helping others when needed.

Perhaps that what FEMA is doing at it's core. I'm just not a fan of red tape! It slows down action!


U have a year without dusaster, the funds arent used, budget reduced. rinse repeat. the state beauracrats will then find things to spend it on, often before next year budget starts.

Disaster

No money/resources avail.

Works this way at almost any lvl govt. at least federally we avg a few disasters a year
 
2012-10-29 03:26:34 AM

propasaurus: SlappyKincaid: brigid_fitch:

It's ALWAYS left to the state. FEMA can't be brought in unless a state declares a state of emergency and asks for federal aid. I think that's why Christie waited as long as he did to declare it (3pm today, as opposed to the rest of the East Coast states who declared it on Saturday). He's gunning for a 2016 presidential election and doesn't want to be seen relying on the Feds. However, when you've got a huge Frankenstorm bearing down on you, ready to make landfall right in the middle of your state, you look at your resources and decide if you can handle it or not. NJ can't handle this on its own. The ...

Oh I see. FEMA is not an automatic response. The state has the power to envoke them or too refuse them.

That's good to know. Thanks!

In a case like Sandy, I think everyone in those states can use all the help they can get, assuming it's going to be as crazy as predicted.

I'm not really pro-central government, in case that wasn't clear, but there are times when the central government is needed and this may be one of them.

Y'know what? What's wrong with a central government? We're one country. One big-ass country. Why do we need 50 sets of rules and regulations? You're an American, not a Georgian or Californian or Texan. Same rules apply to everyone.


I dunno about you, but I dont want some Texas hick who has no concept of the culture I was raised in having significant power to control what goes on in my neck of the woods. I dont want some racist Mississippian being able to tell me "You cant do that" for something that is acceptable for here in Maine.
 
2012-10-29 03:28:30 AM

SlappyKincaid: Shouldn't the National Guard of each state be prepared, and supplied, to handle emergencies such as this?

I understand we've chosen to centralize our disaster response with FEMA but wouldn't it make sense to allow the states to be the first responders given they will know the area, it's population and it's needs better than a central agency who has never dealt there before?

I think it would be simple to train them for this and probably also defray cost in the long run as transports, fuel and a massive bureaucracy cost quite a bit!


Here's the problem: natural disasters cross state lines. You need coordination across all affected areas, and the areas adjacent to them, in order to effectively respond. State-by-state planning is a horrible model for that. Political and jurisdictional boundaries work against a reasonable response to anything that doesn't care about such things.
 
2012-10-29 03:28:36 AM

brigid_fitch:

I understand and actually appreciate that you're asking intelligent questions about it instead of going all WHARBARBL about Big Government. Look at FEMA like insurance. All the states pay into it but hope they never have to use it. However, it's there if they need it. And, just like you have the option of going to the doctor if you decide that maybe you're a little sicker than you thought & you need something more than bedrest and Nyquil, governors have the option of calling in FEMA.


That is indeed a good way to look at it. I'm just curious to know, and I haven't found it in my reading yet, if the federal government can supersede the state if they deem something a disaster beyond what the state can handle by itself even if the state disagrees.
 
2012-10-29 03:29:04 AM

Dr.Zom: Wow, God really hates Mitt Romney.


Yep.

God is going to make him Jesus of some ex-planet, say Pluto, now.

And that is the weirdest thing I've learned from my Jack-Mormon friends.
 
2012-10-29 03:29:36 AM
Can a Romneybot explain this one thing to me?

How can this actually be a good thing? Has ANY state ever had a disaster that fit a budget and a timeline? If we have this at a federal level, then Fema can disperse funds and assistance to the state that needs it. Arizona goes on a 10 year cycle on flooding. 1983 or so, 1994 or so, and then 2010 or so. That's their biggest disasters, except for wildfires. Louisiana and Florida, on the other hand, have hurricanes hit pretty regularly. With a federal system, you can have the money and manpower sent WHERE it is needed and WHEN. At a state level, who knows what will happen with someplace with less disasters like Arizona? Will they have enough money? Will someone just shelve the entire program one year and never reinstate it? And what about the amount of money? What happens if the disaster runs over budget? With it at a federal level, more money can be sent. With it at a state level, once it's gone, it's gone. That is, unless Mitt is talking out his ass again, and he just plans to have a disaster relief unicorn in every state that shiats out funds whenever needed.

These "state's rights" people are getting annoying, they don't think a single thing through, they just parrot what they heard because the phrase "state's rights" were at the beginning. There is a reason that a lot of this stuff is done at the federal level.
 
2012-10-29 03:29:47 AM

log_jammin: well that was refreshing.



It was actually.

Good thread so far, folks.
 
2012-10-29 03:31:19 AM

shower_in_my_socks: It'll be fun watching Romney attempt to criticize Obama's Federal response to a disaster after demanding that the Feds shouldn't respond at all.


Well, all you have to do to see that is to see what F*x News is saying right now, before the storm has officially hit.

/EHRMEHGEHRD EHRT'S EHRBERHMERH'S KERHTRINERH!
 
2012-10-29 03:31:23 AM

cman:

I dunno about you, but I dont want some Texas hick who has no concept of the culture I was raised in having significant power to control what goes on in my neck of the woods. I dont want some racist Mississippian being able to tell me "You cant do that" for something that is acceptable for here in Maine.


Down there they can't even figure out when Patriots' Day is supposed to be, let alone how to live in a state that actually has real seasons.
 
2012-10-29 03:31:39 AM

SlappyKincaid: That is indeed a good way to look at it. I'm just curious to know, and I haven't found it in my reading yet, if the federal government can supersede the state if they deem something a disaster beyond what the state can handle by itself even if the state disagrees.



Not that I know of. Honestly? The political pressure on a governor who tried to pull that one would be enormous. People tend not to appreciate ideological purity when their homes have been destroyed and they need food.

I honestly don't know because there's never been a case where that needed to happen.
 
2012-10-29 03:32:21 AM

Genevieve Marie: log_jammin: well that was refreshing.


It was actually.

Good thread so far, folks.


U just jinxed it
 
2012-10-29 03:32:39 AM
i1125.photobucket.com

/Scuse me while I whip this out.
 
2012-10-29 03:33:23 AM

katfairy: cman:

I dunno about you, but I dont want some Texas hick who has no concept of the culture I was raised in having significant power to control what goes on in my neck of the woods. I dont want some racist Mississippian being able to tell me "You cant do that" for something that is acceptable for here in Maine.

Down there they can't even figure out when Patriots' Day is supposed to be, let alone how to live in a state that actually has real seasons.



You know, I'm pretty stoked about my impending move to New England. I've lived in Louisiana, Georgia, and now Texas. It'll be nice to live somewhere where I'm an average liberal instead of a crazy liberal.
 
2012-10-29 03:33:54 AM

DORMAMU: Genevieve Marie: log_jammin: well that was refreshing.


It was actually.

Good thread so far, folks.

U just jinxed it


screw you man. she did not!
 
2012-10-29 03:34:19 AM

Girl From The North Country: If it's left up to states to handle disasters, what state will be chosen to handle his campaign?


*rimshot*
 
2012-10-29 03:34:38 AM

SlappyKincaid: brigid_fitch:

I understand and actually appreciate that you're asking intelligent questions about it instead of going all WHARBARBL about Big Government. Look at FEMA like insurance. All the states pay into it but hope they never have to use it. However, it's there if they need it. And, just like you have the option of going to the doctor if you decide that maybe you're a little sicker than you thought & you need something more than bedrest and Nyquil, governors have the option of calling in FEMA.

That is indeed a good way to look at it. I'm just curious to know, and I haven't found it in my reading yet, if the federal government can supersede the state if they deem something a disaster beyond what the state can handle by itself even if the state disagrees.


Nope--the state has to declare a state of emergency and request assistance from FEMA. In fact, that was a contributing factor to the Katrina fiasco. Gov. Blanco didn't declare a state of emergency soon enough, delaying aid. Granted, the entire situation still managed to get royally botched from there, but the delay in requesting additional aid certainly didn't help them any.

By contrast, the MS governor declared it a day before LA did and FEMA was already standing by at the first hint of problems.
 
2012-10-29 03:35:42 AM
DAMN YOU TTIM YENMOR.
 
2012-10-29 03:35:51 AM

log_jammin: DORMAMU: Genevieve Marie: log_jammin: well that was refreshing.


It was actually.

Good thread so far, folks.

U just jinxed it

screw you man. she did not!


I'm afraid this battle station will be quite operational should unpleasantness arrive.
 
2012-10-29 03:37:07 AM

Genevieve Marie: I'm afraid this battle station will be quite operational should unpleasantness arrive.


I'm not going to make a joke about your red alerts.
 
2012-10-29 03:37:33 AM

propasaurus: We should be 50 individual countries.


It'd be constant war. I know I'd be down with invading a near by Country state.

\looking at you Kansas
 
2012-10-29 03:37:51 AM

BolloxReader:

Here's the problem: natural disasters cross state lines. You need coordination across all affected areas, and the areas adjacent to them, in order to effectively respond. State-by-state planning is a horrible model for that. Political and jurisdictional boundaries work against a reasonable response to anything that doesn't care about such things.


That is true. Often times a disaster is multiples states. I think I was looking at it from a standpoint similar to the US Interstate Highway system. The US government built the highway system then, once it was completed, it was up to each state to maintain their portion of the roads. If you've ever done any interstate traveling you can see that some states are better than others, but it's their job.

However the points made in this thread and my own reading this evening show me the benefit of a FEMA.
 
2012-10-29 03:38:30 AM

log_jammin: Genevieve Marie: I'm afraid this battle station will be quite operational should unpleasantness arrive.

I'm not going to make a joke about your red alerts.



That's probably good. Honestly, that was just a decent excuse for a Star Wars joke. I got nothing.
 
Displayed 50 of 334 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report